[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

FOLG.  Discussion Note 3

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 2.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003136.html
In: FOLG-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3135

Joe, Peirce List,

JR: How can you expect it to strengthen that claim when accepting your
    proposed replacement involves ignoring the fact that Peirce regarded
    the existential graph system and the earlier entitative graph system
    as something more than a mere difference in the method of assignments
    of "T"s and "F"s to a formal notation.

Again with the "proposed replacement" that I supposedly proposed --
well, my imagination deserts me there, so I'll just follow along
and see what you have in mind.  Accepting the proposed replacement
supposedly involves regarding logical graphs as involving nothing
more than "a mere difference in the method of assignments of T's
and F's to a formal notation", against the overall supposition
that Peirce regarded such systems as something more than that.

Aside from the fact that I don't suppose what you suppose I suppose,
I suppose that makes some kind sense.  So I will just let you save
that discussion for somebody who supposes those sorts of things.

JR: It involves a radically different conception of what a universe
    of discourse is and how it relates to a sheet of assertion, and
    indeed involves a radically different conception of a sheet of
    assertion ...

Now there I find a node of agreement, so I'll
leave it to the development of further details
to decide the difference between deity and devil.

JR: ... and even if this is, after all, only a difference which disappears
    at the higher level of abstraction you are using in doing this, it would
    seem to be unwise to make any such move -- highly questionable on the face
    of it -- when the chance of making a serious conceptual error in doing so
    has no corresponding pay-off value that would make that risk worth running.

Whether Peirce's "radically different conceptions" of the UoD, the SoA,
and their relationship to each other are differences that disappear by
bringing in the higher level of abstraction that allows us to consider
the possibility of dual interpretations, or whether they are in fact
accentuated by doing so, is not a foregone conclusion but a matter
for further investigation.  The reason for climbing to a higher
level of abstraction is not to lose the details in the haze,
but to make comparisons among the remoter areas of interest, 
to see more of the realm of interest and to see it better.
There is nothing automatic about what levels of contrast
and similarity a comparative study will ultimately show.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o